Page 5 - 20181101 - Minutes - TSAB v2 - PUBLIC

LG explained that members find the audits very valuable and it provides a real insight into how
other agencies work and approach matters. It is a real opportunity to share good practice and
learn from each other.

Performance Audit & Quality (PAQ) - Chair

 Quality Assurance Framework (QAF)
AB highlighted that through ongoing conversations with some colleagues, she has heard that the
QAF is onerous and is not proportionate. A number of organisations have been unable to meet
the deadline and have submitted late. AB acknowledged that the QAF should be helpful for both
parties; to provide assurance to the Board and also assurance to the organisation themselves. AB
asked members who have completed the QAF for their comments.

HS felt that completing the QAF for the first time can be challenging to pull it all together but that
overall, time is saved as when inspected by other regulators the evidence is easily accessible.
When it comes to completing the QAF again, it just requires updating and this does not take much
time.

Zoe Sherry (ZS) felt that the template was focused more on statutory partners which made it
difficult for a voluntary organisation to complete. ZS felt that it is a valuable piece of work to do
and Healthwatch Hartlepool are now fully up to date with their safeguarding information. LG felt
that there is some value in reviewing the template and altering to suit the different types of
organisations. Stuart Harper-Reynolds (SHR) suggested that there should be one template but
that it is made clear which areas do not apply to specific agencies.

SHR agreed that the QAF is a valuable exercise, but suggested that it would help if more examples
of evidence could be included. LG explained that this would be difficult as organisations submit
evidence relevant to their own area, LG also reminded that there is an evidence list built into the
template. LG suggested that the template and the whole process is reviewed. SHR suggested
having a sense check prior to the submission date to ensure agencies are on the right track.

Policy Procedures and Practice (PPP) – Ann Workman

 Frequency of Meetings
AW reflected that the Board has a suite of policies, procedures and guidance as a result of the
work generated from the PPP Sub-Group. It was debated at the last meeting whether the group
should continue in its current format, meet less regularly or to adopt a Task & Finish group
approach. Members who were not present at the last meeting have been asked for their feedback.
The general consensus at the meeting was not to continue with regular meetings.

 Inter-Agency Policy - Review
LG commented that there have been some minor amendments to the policy which now includes
references to animal cruelty and the possible links to safeguarding. It was noted that Teesside
University are leading on a national piece of research that shows those who are cruel to animals
are more likely to be cruel to people.

The link to GDPR legislation and the Board’s recently reviewed Information Sharing Agreement
(ISA) has been included. John Lovatt (JL) suggested that Multi-Agency Tasking and Coordination
(MATAC) is included in the policy.

The reviewed policy was approved by members subject to the inclusion of MATAC – signatures
from statutory partners are required.

AB reminded members that there are a few signatures outstanding for the ISA and asked that
members present and with designated authority sign the document.

 Section 42 Enquiry Letter (c/f)
5